Russian River Independent Science Review Panel

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Russian River Independent Science Review Panel"

Kelly Boone
5 years ago
Views:

1 Russian River Independent Science Review Panel Laurel Marcus Executive Director Ca. Land Stewardship Institute (CLSI) Fish Friendly Farming Certification Program 550 Gateway Dr. #108 Napa, Ca X1

2 PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION Provide a summary of the Russian River Independent Science Review Panel (ISRP) peer-reviewed scientific report Focus on findings on Surface/Groundwater interactions in the Russian River alluvial valleys and their role in the lifecycle Provide essential knowledge to growers about groundwater for coming regulation of groundwater through the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). A new update will list additional groundwater basins for regulation by using surface to groundwater interactions and salmonid concerns Describe channel types in the basin and where summer water provides for salmonid rearing. Use this information for your own property. There is a great deal of information in the ISRP report. Visit to download a copy Visit the Fish Friendly Farming booth for a copy of the ISRP Executive Summary and Fact Sheet

3 FUNDING AND ISRP MEMBER SELECTION Funded in 2012 by a group of local water suppliers (Sonoma County Water Agency and the Russian River Mendocino County Flood Control and Water Conservation District), agricultural groups (Russian River Water Conservation Council), and watershed organizations (California Land Stewardship Institute) and growers in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. Each ISRP member passed a conflict of interest review similar to that used by the National Science Foundation. MEMBERS OF THE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE REVIEW PANEL Dr. Matt Kondolf, Professor of Environmental Planning at U.C. Berkeley. Dr. Richard Adams, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Resource Economics Dr. John Bredehoeft, consulting Hydrogeologist. Dr. James Constantz, retired Research Hydrologist. Dr. Matthew Cover, Associate Professor of Ecology at C.S.U. Stanislaus. Mr. Christopher Farrar retired U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologist. Dr. Michael Marchetti, Professor of Ecology at St. Mary s College of California. Dr. Vincent Resh, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at U.C. Berkeley. Dr. F. Douglas Shields, Jr., Consulting Hydraulic Engineer Four other scientists who passed the same conflict of interest review provided peer review of the report

4 ISRP TASKS Assemble and review existing data sources for the entire Russian River watershed. Identify major data gaps Evaluate monitoring methods, protocols, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) measures, and recommend standards Formulate a conceptual model of the physical processes of surface and groundwater flow for a series of eight subareas in the watershed. The model answers the question: How do surface water and groundwater interact to produce stream flow in creek and river channels and how does this interaction vary spatially in fish-bearing tributary streams? Prepare a report describing the watershed and conceptual model, summarizing data sources and data gaps, and recommending needed studies, needed monitoring and monitoring protocols. Submit report for peer review and address/incorporate peer review comments

BACKGROUND: UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE RUSSIAN RIVER Unlike most north coast rivers the Russian River has a series of alluvial river valleys Redwood, Ukiah, Hopland, Alexander and Russian River Valley.

5 BACKGROUND: UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE RUSSIAN RIVER Unlike most north coast rivers the Russian River has a series of alluvial river valleys Redwood, Ukiah, Hopland, Alexander and Russian River Valley. These alluvial valleys are pull-apart basins formed by differential movement along parallel faults creating a depression. The depression widens and deepens over time and fills with gravel, boulders and cobble eroded from the surrounding mountains.

Franciscan Complex is low permeability; wells drilled in these rock types have low production rates of 1-10 gpm.

6 GEOLOGY AND CLIMATE The basement rock of the watershed is Franciscan Complex, a mélange of rock types highly prone to erosion and landslides. Franciscan Complex is low permeability; wells drilled in these rock types have low production rates of 1-10 gpm. Sonoma Volcanics was deposited during a period of active volcanism 8 to 2.5 million years ago. Wells in this formation can be highly productive in the 100 gpm range. Alluvium is primary area of groundwater storage

7 HISTORICAL CONDITION Historical photograph of the Perkins St. Bridge over the Russian River in Ukiah Valley. Note wide shallow channel (Early 20th Century)

8 RUSSIAN RIVER NEAR HEALDSBURG swimmers Note size of gravel bar. Pool downstream of bar will be as deep as bar is high.

9 Compilation of Illustrative Historical Low Water Measurements on Russian River Waterways Waterway Year Discharge Pool Depth West Fork Russian River Comments August cfs 3.12 ft. Slightly below average rainfall, Cape Horn Dam only, little to no summer diversion from Eel River East Fork Russian River September cfs N/A Pre-dates diversion from Eel River, Average rainfall year West Fork Russian River Ackerman and Orr Creeks Ukiah Valley Russian River - Geyserville September cfs N/A Average rainfall year September 2, /24/1911 7/22/1911 8/18/ /29/1911 Dry at confluence with river 212 cfs 52 cfs 2 cfs 10 cfs Dry Creek 1939 Dry October 1 to December 8 Dry Creek October 1941 October 1942 Upper Dry Creek Sept , 30, Oct and Sept 24- Oct cfs 3.7 cfs N/A 9 ft. 7 ft. N/A N/A Slightly below average rainfall Slightly below average rainfall, Cape Horn Dam only, little to no summer diversion from Eel River Slightly above average rainfall No diversions or storage upstream Slightly above average rainfall Average rainfall year. No diversions or storage upstream 0.1 cfs N/A Below average rainfall. No diversions or storage upstream

10 CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM The Potter Valley Project was constructed in 1908 and Lake Pillsbury was constructed in Coyote Dam was constructed in Releases from Lake Mendocino provide summer flows significantly changing the hydrology of the Russian River

Instream bar skimming and excavation of floodplain pits continues to be done.

11 CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM Gravel pit mining of the Russian River Valley lowered the river bed by ft. In , 10 million tons of gravel were extracted from the river channel. Instream bar skimming and excavation of floodplain pits continues to be done. The Russian River continues to adjust to these major impacts. Mining also occurred in Alexander, Ukiah and Hopland Valleys.

12 CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM The use of car bodies to stabilize stream banks was recommended by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture in the 1930 s

acres of channel clearing 210,000 cubic yards of channel excavation 10.8 miles of jacklines 4.

13 CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM Army Corps of Engineers Russian River Channel Improvement Project in Alexander Valley Over the Ukiah-Hopland-Alexander Valley areas of the Russian River, the Corps project resulted in: 635 acres of channel clearing 210,000 cubic yards of channel excavation 10.8 miles of jacklines 4.4 miles of flexible fence 2.0 miles of willow planting with wire mesh (30 ft. wide strips) 11.3 miles of willow only planting (30 ft. wide strips)

hungry water that erodes the bed and banks

14 CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM Russian River and tributaries before and after the construction of Coyote Dam. The reservoir impounds bedload releasing hungry water that erodes the bed and banks of the river Incision in the Russian River in Ukiah and Hopland Valleys

15 CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM Entrenchment of the Russian River in its alluvial valleys migrates up tributary streams eroding out aquatic and riparian habitats

16 CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM Incision of the main stem river channel lowers the groundwater table in the alluvial aquifer. This process has occurred in rivers and groundwater aquifers worldwide including: the Apalachicola River in Florida, the Mojave River in Ca., waterways in the Tar River Basins in North Carolina, Goulburn River in Australia, Drôme River in France and the Mendenhall River in Alaska.

17 Russian River Flow at Hopland Gage, 2001 CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM 8000 CFS /1/2001 2/1/2001 3/1/2001 4/1/2001 5/1/2001 6/1/2001 7/1/2001 Ground surface The drop in groundwater level in Morrison Creek coincides with the drop in flow levels in the main river channel. This same pattern was measured in Parsons Creek No juvenile steelhead could have migrated out of these creeks in March.

18 MOUNTAINS LOW RIVER FLOW / SMALL RAINFALL EVENT MOUNTAINS ENTRENCHED RIVER CHANNEL ALLUVIAL BASIN WITH GROUNDWATER DURING AND AFTER RAINSTORM- CREEK EXITING MOUNTAINS AND CROSSING ALLUVIAL VALLEY At low flow in the river channel, water exiting the creek canyon onto the alluvial valley will percolate into the alluvium until the alluvium is filled with water, the groundwater rises and connected surface flows occur. This situation can strand steelhead.

19 MOUNTAINS LOW RIVER FLOW LARGE RAINFALL EVENT ENTRENCHED RIVER CHANNEL MOUNTAINS ALLUVIAL BASIN WITH GROUNDWATER DURING AND AFTER RAINSTORM- CREEK EXITING MOUNTAINS AND CROSSING ALLUVIAL VALLEY During large or intense rainfall events when the river is low creek flow may be great enough to make it nearly to the river channel before percolating into the alluvium. Surface runoff will percolate into the alluvium until the alluvium is filled with water, the groundwater rises and connected surface flows occur. This situation can strand steelhead.

CHANNEL DURING AND AFTER RAINSTORM- CREEK

20 MORRISON CREEK AT HIGH FLOW IN FEBRUARY 2009 CONNECTED FLOW MOUNTAINS HIGH RIVER FLOW RAINFALL EVENT MOUNTAINS ALLUVIAL BASIN WITH GROUNDWATER ENTRENCHED RIVER CHANNEL DURING AND AFTER RAINSTORM- CREEK EXITING MOUNTAINS AND CROSSING ALLUVIAL VALLEY

21 Major groundwater basins in Russian River watershed HOPLAND VALLEY DRY CREEK VALLEY

22 Alexander Valley groundwater basin ft. of recent alluvium overlying dense Franciscan Complex ft. of recent alluvium overlying older alluvium. Basement rock is Great Valley Sequence with Sonoma Volcanics on eastern margin ft. of recent alluvium overlying Franciscan Complex

23 Alexander Valley groundwater monitoring show small change in groundwater levels but study notes small data set and lack of continuous monitoring

25 Santa Rosa Plain groundwater basin. Studies show some over extraction in deep aquifer

26 SUMMARY Groundwater in the Russian River is complex due to the highly variable geology and movement of water between surface flows and groundwater storage Historical records indicate that during the dry season there was little to no flow in alluvial tributaries in the valleys and little surface flow in the river channel with deep groundwater fed pools The Russian River channel is highly entrenched changing from a wide shallow channel to a deep narrow channel. Groundwater levels are highly affected by the stage of the river in the dry season. Surface flow in the alluvial creeks in the major river valleys are also affected by the stage of the river. These changes in surface to groundwater interactions likely affect in and outmigration of salmonids Groundwater studies show a slight imbalance between the extraction of water and recharge in the Santa Rosa Plain and a slight lowering in the Alexander Valley. There is no documented imbalance in the Redwood-Ukiah-Hopland valley basins. There is inadequate data on groundwater levels and groundwater use in all the basins

27 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF STREAM FLOW PROCESSES This figure shows a cross section through the watershed and the 8 channel types in their typical locations in the drainage. The arrows show hydrological exchange. Stars mark channel types likely to support steelhead rearing.

Gages in alluvial fan channel show intermittent flows.

28 Gill Creek Sausal Creek Pena Creek Data for 40 stream flow gages in each channel type were analyzed to evaluate the seasonality of flow. Gages in alluvial fan channel show intermittent flows. These channels are used by steelhead trout for migration between bedrock canyon creeks and the river

29 Big Sulphur Gill Creek Mark West Sausal Creek Warm Springs Stream flow gaging data for Bedrock Channels shows year round flows in most years. These channels are the primary summer rearing habitat for steelhead trout.

and fissures in bedrock can deliver water into creek Affected by direct diversions, wells

31 High channel slope 1-8% Creek is confined by canyon walls No floodplains and little alluvium Year round flow Bedrock relatively impermeable, water does not infiltrate Cracks and fissures in bedrock can deliver water into creek Affected by direct diversions, wells in certain types of bedrock Most likely channels for summer rearing by steelhead Bedrock Channel

Confined Alluvial Channel Channel slope is 1-4% with confining walls There are gravel

shows year round flow in most locations but also summer dry conditions Rural residential

alluvium Adjacent roads can channelize the creek and remove riparian and aquatic habitats

32 Confined Alluvial Channel Channel slope is 1-4% with confining walls There are gravel bars but no floodplains Channel will have pool and riffle morphology Stream flow gaging shows year round flow in most locations but also summer dry conditions Rural residential uses may border creek Wells need to be screened in the underlying bedrock not the alluvium Adjacent roads can channelize the creek and remove riparian and aquatic habitats May support salmonid spawning and winter rearing with fish moving to bedrock channels for summer rearing

show year round flow and some intermittent summer conditions Both agriculture and rural residential land uses may border channel Shallow

33 Semiconfined Alluvial Channel Channel slopes are 1-4% Channel has floodplains, gravel bars, riffles and pools One bank is constrained by valley wall Occur where pull-apart activity has occurred May have secondary channels, floodplain wetlands and sloughs Stream flow gages show year round flow and some intermittent summer conditions Both agriculture and rural residential land uses may border channel Shallow wells and direct diversions can affect flow May support salmonid spawning and winter rearing with fish moving to bedrock channels for summer rearing

infiltrates at head of fan, may have lakes or wetlands at end of fan Intermittent flow, may dry between winter storms Agriculture on

34 Alluvial Fan Channel Channel slope 2-4% Cone or fan-shaped, unconfined alluvial deposit Form at transition between high slope bedrock channel and flat valley floor Braided and multi-channeled system with channels migrating across fan in flood events Water infiltrates at head of fan, may have lakes or wetlands at end of fan Intermittent flow, may dry between winter storms Agriculture on fan usually manages for one channel Does not support salmonid habitats May be a barrier to salmonid migrations between river and bedrock creeks

lowered groundwater table in valley and makes these channels dry in summer and between storms Most highly modified channelized by

35 Unconfined alluvial channel Russian River Channel slope <1% Primarily occur on valley floor No confinement by hillslopes Historically channels meandered, had floodplains with oxbow wetlands, slough and secondary channels Entrenchment of river channel lowered groundwater table in valley and makes these channels dry in summer and between storms Most highly modified channelized by agriculture and put in pipes for urban Used as migratory stream by salmonids With flows going subterranean fish may be stranded or unable to migrate

Regulated River Main stem river is an unconfined alluvial channel of <1% slope in valleys with bedrock channel between valleys Flow is regulated by Coyote Dam to have

36 Regulated River Main stem river is an unconfined alluvial channel of <1% slope in valleys with bedrock channel between valleys Flow is regulated by Coyote Dam to have higher flows in the dry season and lower flows in the winter Channel was wide and shallow historically and now is highly entrenched and narrow with a lowered groundwater table

37 Channel Type Size of Alluvial Deposit Channel Slope Classes (%) Months of Continuous Stream Flow Water Temperature in Summer Types of Human Use Resiliency to Drought Effects of Main Stem Stage Fluctuations Vulnerabili ty to Bank Erosion Colluvial (COL) Bedrock Canyon (BRK) Confined Alluvial (CON) Semi confined Alluvial (SEM) none >8 <6 none small mediu m 0-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8, >8 0-1, 1-2, , 1-2, Dry soon after rain. Cool when groundwater fed and has riparian canopy Cool when groundwater fed, sensitive to riparian canopy Cool when groundwater fed, sensitive to canopy cover and pool depth On-stream dams On-stream dams, direct diversions, wells for agriculture and rural residential uses. On-stream dams, direct diversions to off-stream storage for agriculture and residential uses Direct diversions, wells in floodplain, floodplain development, direct diversion into offstream ponds for agriculture or residential uses. Dry most of the time--no resiliency N/A Low High N/A None Moderate Low Low Moderate, depends on alluvial deposit thickness Vulnerable if no grade control at confluence with main stem. Medium

38 Channel Type Dissected Alluvium (DIS) Alluvial Fan (FAN) Unconfine d Alluvial (UNC) Regulated (REG) Size of Alluvial Deposit medium 0-1, 1-2, 2-4 medium or large Channel Slope Classes (%) 0-1, 1-2, 2-4 Months of Stream large 0-1 No gages 3-12 estimated Water Temperature in Summer Flow 8-12 Variable temperatures sensitive to surface water/groundwat er interactions and riparian canopy 5-9 Warm, poorly shaded Variable temperatures, often warm or dry, sensitive to surface water/groundwat er interactions and riparian canopy. Types of Human Use On-stream reservoirs, direct diversions to offstream storage, wells in floodplain for agriculture and residential uses. Wells, winter direct diversion into off-stream storage for agriculture. Most extreme effects gravel mining, channelization, wells, onstream reservoirs, direct diversions into offstream reservoirs, floodplain development for agriculture and residences. large Warm Most extreme effects gravel mining, channelization, wells, floodplain development, large on-stream reservoir. Resiliency to Drought Effects of Vulnerabili Main Stem ty to Bank Stage Erosion Fluctuations Variable Low Medium Low Vulnerable High Low, depends on location relative to regulated channel Very vulnerable High High N/A High

Conceptual Model of Stream Flow Processes for the Russian River Watershed. Chris Farrar

Conceptual Model of Stream Flow Processes for the Russian River Watershed Chris Farrar Several features of creeks affect the interactions between surface and groundwater. This conceptual model uses the